Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Platos views on happiness
Plato's view of happiness
Platos views on happiness
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Platos views on happiness
In the Protagoras, Socrates attempts to demonstrate to Protagoras that the traditional account of moral weakness is incoherent. He argues that akrasia, moral weakness, is simply ignorance. In line 353a10, Socrates embarks on a journey with Protagoras in which he asks “ordinary people” about being overcome by pleasure and doing something that was bad although they knew it was bad. Socrates employs the examples of using food and drink and having sexual relations to illustrate that people will partake of hedonistic pleasures while knowing that they may come to bad ends. He demonstrates that the immediate pleasure of an act, which may bring about “diseases and poverty,” is not what makes the act bad, but that the consequential disease or poverty, which becomes painful, makes the act bad (353d3). Socrates then uses the example of medical practices to show that things that might be immediately painful are good. He derives that the experiences are not good because of the immediate pain that they cause, but instead, the subsequent pleasure. These procedures rid a person of or at least allay their pain. Ultimately, safeguarding both the people and thereby the society that benefit is what makes the unpleasant experience good. The statement that symbolizes akrasia is that a person who knows the bad is bad, does it because they are overwhelmed by pleasure and the a person who knows the good to be good, refuses to do it because of the immediate pleasure. Socrates maintains that this argument uses too many names; he suggest reducing it to a matter of “good” and “bad” and then “pleasure” and “pain” (355c1). In the new statement, the words pleasure and good will be interchangeable as will pain and bad. This is the argument that follows:
A ...
... middle of paper ...
... that are closer; inability to discern which of these is actually the greatest is ignorance. Education, knowledge, is the cure for this because if a person knows that there is a more beneficial choice then they will receive their salvation or betterment. He holds that if the pleasant is also good then no one who knows that there is a better choice will advance to a bad thing. Socrates furthers his argument by saying that no one willingly chooses to indulge in the bad knowing there is an option to choose good and likewise, one will not choose a greater pain over a lesser pain. As a law of human nature, people will choose what is most beneficial to them – as with medical care. For example a person might choose to have a decaying tooth removed, this being painful, because it will alleviate more pain in the distant future.
Citation
Plato, Protagoras, 351b-358d
Socrates uses the explanation of food and drink and knowledge and intelligence in order to explain what is in a truer form of being. He states that while hunger and thirst will eventually come back once they are subdued by food and drink the man whom seeks knowledge and intelligence becomes ever full. This fullness is what it is like for a man to live a just life and thus the proper human life. Since the just life is the most pure form of being. He backs this claim by asking several questions such as which is more? A thing that is always going to be connected to something else and that is the same and is also always true, or something that is connected to something that is never the same as one thing and is mortal and only exists in itself. The obvious answer to this question would be that of the thing that is connected eternally is more. This is because the only thing that is of the most substance and that is more is of the thing that contains knowledge. “And the being of that which is always the same, does it participate in being any more than in knowledge?” “Not at all.” Socrates goes on to further strengthen his proposal by saying that if something is less in truth than it is less in being. This holds true for man as well. If a man pursues truth in a lesser way then he himself is not living a just life, as the life of justice is the only life to live that is worthwhile. The type of man that care more about the body and things of that nature are less in the way of truth than that of a man who is more concerned with the
According to Callicles, morality, which contains the concept of honor and justice within it, is a product of the many who are weak, and used to set limits on the few who are strong by nature. (67) Of course, Socrates points out that weak and strong can be defined in many ways, making Callicles statement invalid. Abandoning his original claim, Callicles then admits that what he meant is that the stronger are those who can do as they please, moderation belonging to the “half-witted.” Once again, and therefore happier. Socrates restates his thought on free will, this time, as it applies to acts done in the pursuit of pleasure. He had already shown in his earlier discourse with Polus that there is a difference between what is pleasing and what is good; a person sees a practitioner of medicine even if doing so offers no pleasure because the outcome is good. Considering that a person can seek pleasure whose outcome could be bad, it makes sense that acting for the sake of pleasure itself is fool hearted, and fools who seek to experience pleasure regardless of outcome, as Socrates explains, are like a sieve because they lack the
If there is no free will, there can be no morality. Morality is the concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong. Reading from the apology, Socrates reminds Crito of some general principles when Crito tries to persuade him to escape from the prison.
Socrates is speaking to Polemarchos, and during their conversation, Polemarchos proposes that justice is to simply help friends and to harm enemies. Socrates then brings up a great point, which is the way people choose friends and enemies, and how that process has flaws in it. He explains that people become friends with those that they believe are genuinely good, and become enemies with those who they believe to be evil. Therefore choosing friends or enemies is open to error since, people don’t know who is truly good or bad. From that point, they come to the conclusion that a better definition of justice would be, to benefit friends if they are good, and harm enemies if they are evil. Socrates asks the ultimate question, which is if it is alright to harm anyone at all. He proceeds to explain that harming another individual, be it a human or horse, makes them less just. If one causes another to be less just, whether the person is good or bad to begin with, that is unjust in itself.
It is the good that we strive to achieve by doing what we see fit, but if we do what we see fit and actually create a wicked outcome, we are not truly doing what we want. In order to do what we want, we must have the knowledge of moral goodness to do what is right, and not to inflict suffering on someone else. In order to be morally sound, it is better to receive the suffering at the hands of another than inflict injustice on us and become miserable. Though Polus does not want to accept this, Socrates, in the end, brings him to his side. So though there are many questions that are left hanging in the balance from this argument, Socrates point is clear that it is better morally to receive injustice than to inflict it.
E: Well, Socrates, I have to admit that there are people in the society who do good things to the society, but there are also people in the society who do harm to the society. Therefore, what is good for the society is to benefit the society as a whole. That is to say, we need to ensure the benefit for the majority of the whole society, which it is necessary to sanction those who do harm to the whole
1b. Socrates states that goods can come in 3 forms such as: intrinsic goods, which are harmless pleasures, intrinsic and instrumental good, such as health and knowledge, and finally he states the third being instrumental goods, which is health and exercise. Socrates believes Justice should fall into the second category with both intrinsic and instrumental goods. Glaucon states that the popular view of justice is that justice is there be not because it’s something good to do, but because people are scared that unjust things will be done to them.
knowledge or conform to this new knowledge. The man approaching the light is him realizing his ignorance, coming to terms with it, and being enlightened gaining a new understanding. The dazzled reaction is the amazement he experienced seeing how blinded he once was by his preconceived thoughts but everything is now much clearer; allowing him to truly see reality as it is. The final sentence is Plato rephrasing the steps the man went through reaching his current state of understanding. The man first started off only knowing about the shadows, then he was released of his restraints able to see the reflections of the men and objects in water, finally reaching the stage prior to enlightenment is the man being able to finally see the objects that have passed him in shadows his whole life.
4. In Plato’s Meno, Socrates argues that human beings do not desire things that they believe to be bad. Socrates presents a valid argument—that is, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. However, his argument is unsound—that is, the argument is valid but holds a false premise. I will argue against the soundness of Socrates’ argument.
"The Best Place On Earth," this newspaper article explains that Seahaven (Trumans' home) should be the only place to live. All this wants to do is lure Truman to stay in Seahaven, this article is right after his call to Fiji. "Who Needs Europe," while this article means basically the same as the first, it just goes into more detail by specifying Europe as the place not to go to. "Crack Down On Homeless," when we first see Trumans' dad he is portrayed as a homeless man, but he is not supposed to be back on the set. This now causes a dilemma for Christof, so he makes it seem like the homeless are terrible people.
Socrates has, at this point, put the issue of justice to bed. However, Glaucon decides to challenge Socrates’s view and puts to him a few claims. He says that all good can split into three categories: the highest of the classes being things we want both for what we get from them and, for their own sake.
Socrates believes one cannot fear what one does not know. He believes since no one has an absolute knowledge of what follows death in the natural world, man should not fear death. He has several arguments to back this up. In this paper I will look at two of his arguments and conclude that his arguments are unsound due to the fact that opinions are not truths.
Book II opens with Socrates and Glaucon arguing about the definition of justice. Socrates is trying to persuade Glaucon and Adeimantus that it is better in every way to be just, rather than unjust. Glaucon argues that justice can belong to three different types of goods. The sort of good we choose to have for the purpose of joy. The type of good where we love something for what it is, while also loving it for its consequence, such as health (Plato and Reeve 302). Finally, the third type of good is when we love something only for the sake of its consequence, such as physical training. Socrates agrees that all three of these goods exist, but he only places justice in the second type of good, or that one must love something for its own sake and its consequence. However, Glaucon disagrees and says that the majority of people think that justice is not appreciated for itself, but only the consequences of justice.
Because of this the idea of what is shame, and pleasures are different for each of these people. Socrates and Glaucon are deciding what method to use to tell if a person is telling the truth and the importance of truth. “Socrates: Consider the matter this way: how should we judge things if we want to judge them well? Isn’t it by experience, knowledge, and argument? Or could someone have better criteria than these?”( Plato, 2012). Socrates has asked Glaucon where truth lies and how a person learns different varieties of truth. This means that to each person the meaning of truth and justice is different additionally the knowledge that we learn will be different with each person. The two men go on to look at how each type of man has learned truth, knowledge and his experiences. They find in the end that the philosopher is the one with all of these criteria and is the most well rounded of them
One simple consideration that can change the course of how people think about their approach to life is, the examination of the influences that they have on other people’s lives. An individual could also look outwards and analyze the impact that other people have on that individual’s life. One should also self-reflect and search for how their thoughts and actions craft a pathway towards their own destiny. The statement by Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living,” is an interesting statement that requires a considerable amount of analysis.